Brown v. Janssen
Brown v. Janssen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Vollie Andre Brown, Jr., Civ. No. 20-1299 (PJS/BRT) Petitioner, v. ORDER Vick Janssen, Respondent.
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Vollie Andre Brown, Jr.’s request for counsel, filed on June 22, 2020. (Doc. No. 7, Mot. to Appoint Counsel.) In his request, Petitioner states that he believes that the strength, complexity, and seriousness of his claims merit appointment of counsel so that he may more effectively present them to the Court. (Id. at 1.) For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 7) is denied without prejudice.
“A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985)); see also In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The decision to appoint counsel in civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court.”) (citing Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984)). Review of the Petition (Doc. No. 1) suggests this case is not significantly more complicated than other pro se habeas matters filed in this Court. Given this, appointment of counsel does not appear warranted at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: July 9, 2019 s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Vollie Andre Brown, Jr., Civ. No. 20-1299 (PJS/BRT) Petitioner, v. ORDER Vick Janssen, Respondent.
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Vollie Andre Brown, Jr.’s request for counsel, filed on June 22, 2020. (Doc. No. 7, Mot. to Appoint Counsel.) In his request, Petitioner states that he believes that the strength, complexity, and seriousness of his claims merit appointment of counsel so that he may more effectively present them to the Court. (Id. at 1.) For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 7) is denied without prejudice.
“A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985)); see also In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The decision to appoint counsel in civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court.”) (citing Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984)). Review of the Petition (Doc. No. 1) suggests this case is not significantly more complicated than other pro se habeas matters filed in this Court. Given this, appointment of counsel does not appear warranted at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: July 9, 2019 s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.